tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News April 5, 2018 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
oh, and well, whatever. i don't have anything to say. follow us on instagram and twitter. that is all the time we have left. we'll be fair and balanced. let not your heart be trouble, there she is. you are on every show on the network. >> laura: doing my best to work hard. i learned from you. >> sean: okay. have a great show. >> thank you. good evening from new york. i'm katie if for laura. we have your covered for the next hour. the media is freaking out about president trump sending troops to the border. we will tell you what the real agenda is. and speaking of getting stories wrong, did the obama administration put out a false narrative about the pulse nightclub terror attack? we will explain that later. a town in l.a. trying to ban assault weapons. is that what the left wants for the country? we'll debate it. first, the revolt against the sanctuary policies continues
with another california city fighting back against the golden state far left stance on immigration. the escondido city council voted 4-10 to file -- 4-1 to file a brief challenging the sanctuary laws. they are first to file against the state laws. we are joined now by grif jenkins at the u.s.-mexico border in san diego. grif? >> there is an undeniable backlash of the controversial sanctuary laws. sb-54 in particular that prohibits the cooperation between the local and the federal law enforcement and folks who live in san diego county along the fence bordering between san diego and tijuana. the folks at the con tense, meeting 45 -- contentious meeting 45 minutes north of
here felt it last night. protesters were all over the place. tempers were flaring. there were 60 people speaking. one man in particular caught our attention. he came to this country 45 years ago. and played by the rules. take a listen. >> i came to this country 45 years ago with me and my mother. okay? 45 years ago we were not offered sanctuary. we were not offered easier, softer way. okay? we were told you have to be an american citizen. here is what you have to do. we did it. >> after that vote which passed 4-1, the mayor told me he was pleased with the vote but was concerned because since 2010 he rounded up more than 2,000 illegal criminal aliens in part because of the cooperation between i.c.e. stationed in escondido police department. well, the new law, that is no more. that is why we spoke to the i.c.e. regional field director
greg archimbald who 30 years ago was stationed inside the escondido police department. here is what he had to say. >> we have a collaborative relationship with the local law enforcement partners and we have always had that collaborative relationship. now it's been strained by state law. and it frustrates the law enforcement agencies because they want to collaborate with us. they want to remove public safety from the community and they want the criminal out of the community. we want to remove from the community and the country. now they can't do that. now their hands are tied. >> what happens next is san diego county board of supervisors will vote on april 17 to take some sort of similar action like escondido. two of the supervisors told me today they expect something
will indeed pass. but escondido now the fifth or the sixth mu municipality that we saw taking action. this is without a doubt, katie, governor brown has a problem because the residents of california feel the laws have crossed the line between protecting the rights of illegal criminals and the safety of the communities. katie? >> thanks so much. joining us now is the man at the center of the story. escondido mayor, republican, and the bierkly, california, mayor. thank you both so much. i should know the berkeley mayor is a democrat supporting the sanctuary policies. but first, i want to go to you. you took the oath of office as an citizen coming to the country as an immigrant. explain to me how it plays in your decision tonight to be against the sanctuary laws coming out of sacramento. >> i took the oath twice, katie. first, when i became citizen,
in 1990. and then second time when i was elected councilman in 2004. and last time when i was elected mayor in 2010. i came this this country to keep my family safe. and i see myself here fighting for the safety of my family. and the families of escondido. i have 150,000 of our residents. our relationship with i.c.e. has worked perfectly. the i.c.e. agent have made my case. and we have deported over 2,000 illegal criminals for from our city with our cooperation with i.c.e. we focus on criminals only. now the i.c.e. agents are on their own and in the community. and in our neighborhood, at our stations picking up criminals and innocent people. as a result of our cooperation with i.c.e. the crime in escondido went down by 33%.
escondido today as safe as it was in 1980. i was elected mayor to uphold the constitution and also to keep my community safe. this resolution to fight the sanctuary law is at the core of my mission. >> so i want to get your response to that. the mayor of escondido is saying they had 2,000 criminal aliens they deported from their community which would be on the street if sacramento had its way by banning local law enforcement from working with the central government. what do you have to say about that? why should 2,000 criminal aliens still be in the communities? >> well, i think it's important to define what you mean by "criminal." certainly violation of the federal, civil, immigration law is a crime. we are talking about people who are victims of a broken immigration system? in escondido they have a right too take a position on the issues for their community but they don't speak for berkeley
and they don't speak for the state of california. there are many cities in the bay area and the state of california that believe that sanctuary policies make communities safer. for example, in my city, crime has gone down in the last ten years. even with the sanctuary policy, our police are still cooperating with the federal agencies. there was an operation in my city a couple of weeks ago where homeland security investigations arrested an illegal immigrant who was engaged in drug crime. >> the local police in berkeley -- it's nice that the local police of berkeley are trying to stop illegal criminal aliens with those crimes. if you want get into that governor brown had five criminal aliens with violent records like domestic violence, armed robbery, theft and robbery, carrying out crimes with the handgun. mayor abed, what is your response to other municipalities allowing these criminal aliens to continue to operate inside california?
because they can just drive down to where you are. it's not like there is a border. >> i think this is a risk that not only escondido but every city in california. and every state in the nation. this mayor is in denial. they want to give sanctuary to illegal criminals. giving sanctuary to illegal criminals and giving them more rights and protect the rights more than the citizens is just immoral, it's illegal and unconstitutional. we need to keep our community safe. sb-52, the sink ware state will give -- sanctuary state will give the immigrants less protection. because i.c.e. will be in our neighborhood picking up everyone. this is just insane. this is immoral. i cannot understand who anybody, who anybody would give the illegal criminals protection from the law and more rights than giving to the
citizens. it's just unbelievable. california is emotional. governor brown and the mayor, the progressive mayors and the legislators have lost sight of doing the right thing. >> well, mayor abed, you are not alone. i want to pull up this map of other cities and municipalities, counties who are looking at either pushing back against sacramento or already have. there is almost more than a dozen of them at that point. so clearly local communities are looking at that and saying we don't want to be part of the laws that don't allow the local law enforcement to work with the feds. but going back for a moment, what do you have to say to those who are victims of crimes of criminal aliens who are allowed to be out on the streets now because the new sanction ware -- sanctuary state laws allow them to escape i.c.e. and recommit crimes? >> my response to that is we
have undocumented residents who are -- >> okay, first of all. what is an undocumented resident? that is not a thing. >> someone undock metropolitanned who lives in the community -- undocumented who lives in the community. >> illegal alien. >> you can refer to them that way but i call them undocumented. it takes years for people to get citizenship status. we have to remember we are a nation of immigrants. >> the guy on the other side of your screen came here legally. >> immigration reform to fix the process so people can legally become citizens. >> i have to stop you there. you are arguing that the united states of america the most generous country in world people are unable to become citizens and stand up for the constitution of the united states. the man who is debating you tonight, mayor abed, did that. he did that for his country. so for you to say that is impossible to get citizenship just is not on par with the facts. mayor abed, do you want to
respond? >> it's offensive. it's clearly offensive. they are getting -- my two daughters went to the university of san marcos. illegal immigrants pay less tuition in the school system. they are given more rights. not only educationally, financially, they are harboring them now. they are giving them more rights. they lost track, i think the democrat, i think sacramento, governor brown, and our mayor here on the show lost track. they are really emotional about the administration and the last election. the emotion and this is clouding their good judgment of doing the right thing. there is a disconnect between them and the constituents. i think you will see a pushback. i think the number of the cities against the sanctuary state is going to grow and it is going to grow. i think there is a movement. i'm very proud to lead this effort. >> mayor, you get the final
word. >> i'll just say that i do believe that sanctuary cities make communities safer. victim of domestic violence are more likely to report the crime and seek intervention of police if they know that they are not going to be deported. in oakland and the bay area where there are recent raids and arrests of people that were undocumented, half the people had no violent or criminal record. >> i think american citizens take issue with the fact they are not allowed to break the law but illegal illiens are shielded from the law -- aliens are shielded from the law in california which is why cities and counties are fighting back. mayor arreguin and abed, thank you. the state of california delphiing the immigration law. the "l" judge issued pre -- the los angeles judge issued preliminary ruling that coffee in the state must include cancer warning. and california welcoming criminals in the state a judge trying to protect people from
coffee. joining me now for reaction and fox gnaws contributor and -- fox news contributor tammy bruce. the latest article is all about the wacky approach to public safety. >> you know, a great segment just now because the absurdity is highlighted there with the arguments. as they are doing this, the arguments are made and as you mention the governor had pardoned actually 70 criminals but five exconvict illegal aliens and the convictions for kidnapping. and all of that. pardon so they can avoid being deported. in the meantime, a judge is now forcing coffee shops to post cancer warning in anyplace that serves coffee. i could be the starbucks or the 7-eleven to at least be reminded that maybe it's your lifestyle that is the problem. but also they are considering banning straws and plastic caps on bottles. because we all love the oceans. ewant to save the oceans. what we know about the plastic
in the ocean the super majority over 90% comes from china. so banning straws in california is not going to save the ocean. so the messaging here is well, criminal illegal aliens are embraced and protected, american citizens going about their regular business, having a straw, having a cup of coffee, the message is that you are the problem, your lifestyle is the problem and you are the ones who have to be controlled. >> yeah, california has a whole list of warning signs and labels they put on things. amusement parks, hotels, boats, wooding flooring, pumpkin puree, potatoes have a warning. the list goes on and on and on. any person who possesses living frog for contest must be condemned. >> it would signal they care about people, they want to keep you save and they need to keep you safe from yourself. in the meantime if you are at a coffee shop getting coffee and worry that coffee will
hurt you, the person next to you could be the illegal alien who is a kidnapper standing next to you. the message is the american citizen is the problem that has to be protected from themselves as they effectively embrace criminals who we know have behavior that harm individuals and elevate them and embrace them. this is leftist message. we see it whether it's los angeles or london. you can see what unregulated liberalism does. liberalism the danger to the individuals in the policy and the liberal policy. not the american citizen. >> leftism. liberalism has a way of making it seem like openness and freedom when really it's california becoming what of a totalitarian state. >> the policies work to control people not to set them free. that is the difference. >> the thing is we were trying to not to laugh. actually we did laugh because it's funny. the truth is when you get to the seriousness of this and you laid it out eloquently in
the op-ed at foxnews.com, this is about the criminality and people's lives affected. >> that is right. you have criminals with a history of behavior that destroy lives. in the meantime california last year passed a law demanding farmers control the flatulence of cows. because of the global warming. which is impossible. but if you then wake up in california, you effectively in a lot of ways could automatically be a criminal. also san francisco, you can only park a car in your garage, nothing else. it's remarkable micro managing of your lives. while ushering in directly dangerous frameworks in your lives. and of course confuses people. sends a message that we are the problem. and it also for tyranny it creates a division, chaos and effectively a confusion about what one can do in the lives and where you can be safe.
in california, it's not many places. >> that is why i think we are seeing the municipalities pushing back. >> it has to be the people to push back. politicians want more of this. they will never stop it. >> they love power and control. thank you. >> thank you. >> up next, the media is in a tizzy over president trump sending troops to the border and tell you what they are getting wrong straight ahead.
president sees the military as play toy. >> this is security theater. election year politicking. >> he wants the image. >> it conjures up soldiers with by a owenet -- by bayonets and rio grande. >> it precipitates a security crisis to get people killed. >> this is based on the whim of impetuous and reactive president. >> he is using the national guard to create hysteria that there is a national emergency. using the taxpayers dollars to booster the low poll numbers with the base. >> katie: someone who agrees with the voices you heard, hernandez. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> katie: my first question is why is it that the president george w. bush in 2006 and later president obama, why is it that they
enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support to send the national guard to the border but with president trump he has trouble? >> actually, they didn't enjoy bipartisan support. >> katie: yes, they did. >> they didn't. everybody thought it was a dumb idea. it's an attraction. what happens if the immigration reform and daca? or to the basic. what happened to building the wall and have mexico pay for it? i said okay, let's go. we have to legalize 100,000 mexicans to build it. what is going on? congress, the republican majority has not given president trump $1 to put the first brick on the border. are we forgetting is that? >> katie: they passed $1.6 billion for the wall. >> that is the repair, that is to repair the part that fell. >> katie: we did an update last week and said they are preparing the wall but they are starting to build the new wall inspectorrers and they have been asked to.
>> no. we haven't even started the illegal proceeding for imminent -- eminent domain. if you locking in the 11 million, law-abiding hardworking people loving america. i told you this before. nobody loves america as much as undocumented immigrants. >> katie: then they should become citizens. >> they would if they could. >> katie: they can. there is a process. >> if you listen to mr. the proposal and president trump's proposal this creates a system -- >> katie: wait. take a step back. president trump, you mentioned daca, offer told give 1.6 illegal aliens a path to citizenship. i want to go back to the main problem here. >> what happened to it? where did it go? >> katie: democrats didn't want it. >> why blame the democrats? it's the republican majority.
it's a republican majority. >> katie: the administration is arguing border security first to get rid of the magnet illegal immigration we keep seeing. 50,000 people across the southern border in march after congress talking about offering some kind of amnesty. >> hold on. >> i want to go to president trump and get you to respond. >> didn't he just last month -- >> katie: we'll listen to the president and have you respond. okay? he talked to the national guard today. >> we cannot let people enter our country. we have no idea who they are, what they do, where they came from. we are working on the systems now and we called out the national guard. i will tell you what, the laws of the country have to be strengthened and toughened up. >> katie: what is wrong with that? the united states of america, the mexican ambassador of america said we have a joint interest in making sure the border is secure. what have is wrong with what the president said?
>> i don't care what mexico thinks but you know what the magnet? we hire them every time we get a roof or food, we are hiring them. we are at least 50% responsible. let's get on to create a system, when the folks who work hard and don't -- >> katie: we are talking about the president calling up the national guard to go on the border. that is the issue here. >> no. >> katie: we are not discussing the issue of amnesty. i know you want to come first but for years people have been promised they'd have the border security in exchange for the amnesty. it has not worked. ed the administration is doing the opposite now. >> the administration is -- >> katie: talk about the same thing as bush and obama. your side of the political aisle thinks it's something new and unprecedented or unnecessary. >> don't put me on either side
of the aisle. i'm a libertarian. don't go there. both sides are to blame. both sides need a boogeyman. republicans don't want to solve the issue. you and, we discussed, the temporary worker visas. what is wrong with that? >> katie: give americans jobs first. [overtalk] >> katie: we are out of time. >> thank you. >> katie: okay. francisco hernandez, thank you. appreciate it. to respond bring in someone who knows about border enforcement. texas lieutenant governor dan patrick who is a republican. >> hi, katie. >> katie: thank you for being here. we appreciate it. talk to us about the impact of the national guard on the southern border. how will it stop the illegal crossing? >> texas has taken the lead joining the president in securing the border. in texas and our budget as lieutenant governor we have put $800 million in each of the budgets to do the job that
obama didn't do. thank god for donald trump. he campaigned on this and america reacted. we had a guest talking about his approval rating. it's up over 50%. republicans 85-90%. people get this president stands for americans and not criminals coming to the country illegally. so we welcome national guard and i hope he leaves them until hell freezes over or until the wall is built. it makes a difference. when rick perry called out the national guard four years ago before leaving office it made a difference. when you have men and women in uniform on the border it sends a message that we are serious about protecting the country. we are all in, in texas with president trump on this issue. >> katie: lieutenant governor, can you expand on that and how crime from illegal immigration has affected the state of texas? in the human and the economic cost. >> let's just look at the facts. the democrats and the liberals
on fox all the time and other networks decrying there are no crimes committed by illegal immigrants. number one, in texas only in the last seven years, we have put in our jails over 245,000 criminal aliens. these are the facts. we have charged them with 650,000 crimes. current or on the rap sheet. we have convictions for 566 murders 274 kidnappings and when president trump talks about rape, in texas in the last seven years 3,244 sexual assaults. join that with 40,000 other assaults. 40,000 drug crimes. thousands of drug crimes and gan members like ms-13 in this country committing crimes. i hear the mayor of bernly say the sank -- mayor of berkeley say sanctuaries city make us safety, that is nonsense. we passed a senate bill 4 last february early in session and
it has been upheld by the court. we give power to the police if they want to ask where you are coming from and ask to see if documents you can do it in texas. secondly if jerry brown tried to pull a stunt in california which is anarchy, he is not upholding his oath. look if oath jerry brown took is the same thing i took or governor abbott took. except the state changes. the name. we swear an oath to the constitution and uphold the laws of the country. our state and jerry brown is not doing it. in texas if any of the democrats defy working with i.c.e. we number one can fine the cities and we can arrest those elected officials and run them out of the office. we are not putting up with this nonsense in texas. america is with the president and texas. that is why everyone wants to move to texas. >> katie: don't mess with texas. that is for sure. one final thought. what impact is the national guard going to have to get back to the front lines and do what they need to do to essential the -- to stem the
him the money for the wall. we need areas particularly around the big cities where most people cross the border and get in big cities and disappear in the population. we need walls and the major crossings. we have 19 alone in texas with mexico. so having the national guard sends a strong message. if you're from central america where a lot of the gang members are coming and you get to the border and you see men in military uniform and women standing on the border it sends a strong message. >> katie: absolutely. a deterrent. >> it will be a deterrent and send them back to where they went and keep us safer. you mentioned the economic
>> katie: welcome back. pressure mounting for president trump to dismiss scott pruitt after the reports surfaced that he had a rented condo owned by the wife of an energy lobbyist for $50 a night. to explain what is going on, let's bring in national correspondent henry. >> if scott pruitt can make a case he has been a strong implementer of the agenda of cutting the regulation to stimulate the economy and save taxpayer money. the best news for him is the president seemed to respond to the case today explaining he still has confidence in pruitt. white house officials privately note the president had previously voiced support for other cabinet chiefs only to push them out shortly thereafter. today a white house spokesman seemed to be a pruitt soft backing saying he could not speak to to the administrator's future. cnn saying that his interview on fox was not happy with the answers. the white house officials are spreading the word that told pruitt not to do the interview and he did it anyway. like he is accused of going around the white house to get big pay raises for the two
close aides. in fact the "washington post" reporting tonight that despite telling fox he only found out about int this beak it's not true -- about it this week it's not true. but pruitt has new problems. another top aide indicated she is resigning. inthe siders say it's unrelated to the questions but this comes at the time that other aides are looking to get out amid turmoil. a new memo from e.p.a. ethics lawyer suggests he only okayed the arrangement he went to the lobbyist on the gift rulings but he did not have all the facts to determine if it presented a conflict of interest. the third house republican today called on pruitt to go. an aide to the corningman saying that they spoke and it's in the best interest of the e.p.a. for mr. pruitt to resign. but supporters are rallying to his defense. rand paul tweeting that scott pruitt is the braviest member of the candidate and we -- member of the cabinet and we need him to help drain the
swamp. and lisa jackson spent twice as much money on a trip to china than was spent by pruitt. and he said he believes that the media gave obama a pass. watch. >> obama cabinet official rented the apartment from the wife of a lookbyist. >> he is a fantastic person. >> a vote of confidence with the president. they are reporting fivee.p.a. officials were re -- five e.p.a. officials were demoted or resigned. plus pruitt wanted a 20-person protective detail. but he did tell me because of the effectiveness in overturning the regulations liberals liberals so angry that he got a lot of death threats so we should put it in that context. >> katie: appreciate it. president trump traveled to west virginia today where he had tough talk for china.
>> for many years, doesn't want to go against china economically. and we are going to do it. we have a trade deficit of $500 billion last year with china. i have respect for the president of china. but he is representing china and i'mrething -- i'mrething --m representing the united states of america. >> katie: tonight president trump says he considers additional $100 billion in the tariff on china after the communist state said it might level i have tariffs on $50 billion in american products such as soy beans and pork. joining me now is strategist. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> katie: what do you make of the president tit-for-tat with china. he says he can win the trade war. what do you think? >> this is a dangerous game we are playing going tit-for-tat
with china and calling it a trade war. november -- no one expected china to res respond as quickly. it will be passed on to the middle class families, especially the farmers. they came out in large numbers for trump so he is going down a dangerous political path. >> katie: that is a valid point. chinese are not stupid. they are targeting the goods from trump country. the president is getting backing from a number of people. we have a quote from dimon from j.p. morgan who says we have entered a time of uncertainty over global trade. president trump has begun to demand material changes in the trade agreements with countries and nations. probably most importantly between the united states and china. the world's two largest
economies. we should acknowledge many of the legitimate complaints about trade. it's not unreasonable for the united states to press ahead for more equivalency. one of the administration's best argument is negotiation alone has not worked. we have seen a number of officials including the politicians cit sizing president for -- cit sizing president for this. saying that there are other ways to go about this but i don't see offers on the table about how to go after china this this way. >> that will be up to the legislative branch to do it if they want to get it done. it should be done in a bipartisan way. it should not be done partisan way because it will immigrant republicans and democrats. i'm disappointed that the president is taking the approach. >> katie: that is interesting because a lot of democrats agree with him and this is more of an issue with republican. i want to bring in charlie hurt, columnist with the "washington times." we got charlie. thank you. what is your take on this?
the president threatening to levy additional $100 billion against china on tariffs. are they being strategic challenging the ardent supporters? >> without a doubt they are strategic. but something everybody agrees upon is for a long time china has been taking advantage of the united states. they have been stealing intellectual property and they have not been practicing free trade the way that all of the agreements envisioned. goodness knows i love free trade. i think trump wants free trade. but at some point you have to address the problems that plagued the united states for decades now. the strategy is to use these as a way to browbeating china at least to the table and to
discuss some of the things. will it work? we don't know. but politicians from both sides of the aisle have ignored the problem for decades. it's a chief reason he got elected in the first place. >> katie: you want to respond to that? >> trump wants to be tough on china at this point when he and his businesses continue to benefit from sourcing to china. his family businesses, there were nine trademarks last year that were outsourced to china. if he is tough on china, be tough on china all the way. >> katie: i think it's being pretty tough on china. i think it will hurt his businesses if we want to go into that. >> we don't know. >> katie: hang on a second. >> you don't know. >> katie: charlie, back to you. >> all the things that he is talking about doing would have the same effect for his own businesses as it would for any other business out there. as it should be. >> katie: charlie, i want to
ask a political question here, however. we are up against the midterm election. the administration hopes that the end justifies the means here but there is going to be a squeeze when it comes to the middle of the country on a lot of the tariffs. the administration is arguing that it's temporary, a temporary move to better long-term trade deal with china. but are there going to be political implications for that? >> i think there are political risks. no doubt about that. but, you know, that is what this guy got elected to do was to take the political risks and quite frankly, you know this, katie, we have been listening to the politicians for so long. they make promises and they never attempt to do anything to fix problems they campaigned on. this guy, yes, it's a rough road, and there are risks. there are political risks but he is doing what he said he would do. >> katie: true.
good point. >> i don't know, charlie, if you consider doing what he said he would do by cutting in the fabric of who the people are. these farmers are going to feel this in a real way in middle america. i don't think again the president wants to travel down that dark political road. >> katie: it will be a tough call, because china does need reigning in for sure and punished for stealing the intellectual property and trade secrets. thank you. appreciate it. the left caught red-handed after another one of the narratives crumbles before their eyes. stay tuned.
>> katie: another narrative from the left has fallen apart. this time over the 2015 pulse nightclub mass shooting in orlando. in the wake of omar mateen's shooting rampage, the obama administration officials and many in the media were quick to say it was fueled by anti-gay bigotry. >> this was an act of terror and it was an act of hate. >> we know the story by now. the target was a gay club in a latin night. and the individuals who were harmed, who were killed were members and friends of the lgbt community. many of them latino. >> katie: leave it to a favorite outlet of the left to expose the assertions as utterly false. a new report by the huffington post proclaims that everyone got the pulse massacre story
wrong. details how the trial of mateen's wife noor salman revealed the assault of the nightclub was a crime of random student and driven by allegiance to isis. joining us from counterterrorism analyst. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure. >> katie: my first question is why is it when we have some sort of terrorist attack like this, god forbid on american soil, or overseas frankly, the left and the media ought matticly go to find a motive that has nothing to do with the actual situation? >> yeah. that is the question here right now. to say we had plenty of evidence to know that this man pledge allegiance to isis. he said on facebook and at other times that his actions were in retaliation for the bombings in syria. yet because this was at a gay nightclub it became a hate crime. the question becoming why is the media so quick to mute or to erase the jihadi narrative? is it because we want to be so politically correct and not
marginalize, you know, the lgbt community here? or is it because we truly don't want or we want to ignore the real threat here which is that there are americans who are being recruited for pledging allegiance who are in the united states? the answer to that is that if you are fearful of perhaps being insensitive to a small minority group, you are being more insensitive to the american people and belittling them when you are not thinking of the largest security issue here. >> katie: you bring up the narrative. i want to put up on the screen quotes from the mainstream media members and the aftermath of the pulse nightclub shooting. daily beast said at the time let's say it plainly. this was a mass killing at lgbt people and homophobic act. others arguing the same thing. undeniably a homophobic hate crime. then here, james robin says numerous suck quent reports
that he had strong homosexual urges came with the picture of a man trying to reconcile inner feelings with the strongly homephobic muslim culture. now we have been through the trial of the wife so we think it had nothing to do with the motive. explain that. when the attack first happened you had in-depth reporting, exclusive reporting on the motive in this attack. >> yeah. absolutely. why the myopic view? why does this need to check just one box? why do we say workplace violence or the person was mentally unstable or whatever it may be? the answer is the person who pledges allegiance to isis and has a jihadi point of view does beat his wife, which we came to find out and he probably does hate gaves -- hate gays but why a narrow view to preclude any narrative? now that we have like extracted the narrative that
this was a hate crime, why was this, why was there a push to get rid of the real narrative, jihadism? one thing i did report on after this is an al-qaeda media on the online news outlet. they put out an alert to be jihadis. if you are going to launch an attack don't do it on a minority group. because piggybacking off this attack they thought americans will only take blame themselves if it's a hate crime. so make sure if you are to launch an attack it's in the name of jihad and only against white americans so they know this was purely jihad. they want the credit. they want it to be branded. we allowed them in this situation for two years to get away with a false narrative. >> katie: we are running out of time. but just re-going over the case it seems like looking at
all the facts when the warning signs were ignored about jihadism by a number of law enforcement agencies, i know as you mention with the narrative for years on end being about a hate crime rather than addressing the real issue and trying to prevent it in the future. final word? >> absolutely. the false, you know, kind of thing that is coming out about this now, even in the huffington post piece this is stuff that came to light after the trial. that is not true. we knew all the piece of evidence when the crime happened that pledge allegiance to isis, that he was doing this to recallate for the so-called crimes that america is committing in syria. this was all really to just take away from the real narrative it was jihad and islamic terrorism. >> katie: thank you for coming on. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> katie: give up your gun or face the consequences. where a mayor just struck down the second amendment.
capacity magazines. the residents have until june 13 to give them up. if they refuse they will face fines up to $1,000 per day. will other liberal strongholds try to follow in the path? joining us with reaction democratic strategist joel payne. joel, we have been hearing for weeks that the left doesn't have an antigun agenda, they don't have an agenda of banning guns. but yet, here we are with deerfield, illinois, not just banning assault rifles which is a loaded political term. we are talking about semi-automatic sporting rifles here. but a number of other accessories that they deem as military style. >> i don't think this is the left doing this. this is a locality coming together to do something for the safety of their community. the same as another community did very near deerfield, highland park, i believe, in 2013. they actually survived a couple of legal challenges that show this is something that the court did not stand in the way of.
it follows suit with what florida did after the parkland shooting. localities coming together because the national government, the national leaders failed to act meaningfully on gun control, on ensuring we are protecting the citizen from gun violence. >> katie: not everyone was on board. majority of the people at the meeting said they were against the measure. i want to play sound from a woman at the meeting against banning the type of firearms. >> there is a lot of talk about the second amendment rights but i'd be hard-pressed to find any right that is completely unrestricted. >> katie: sorry. she is for the measure. how does illinois not have a number of legislation and regulations on the book already when it comes to gun control? >> localities have the right to act and make sure they are protecting the citizens.
the same way as there could be a dry county where you can't alcohol. >> katie: is alcohol in the bill of rights? >> you have to be a certain age to drive -- >> katie: is driving a constitutional right? >> they have a right to keep the community safe. conservatives you usually like this. >> katie: answer the question. is driving or drinking alcohol constitutional rights? >> excuse me? >> katie: is drinking alcohol and driving a vehicle constitutional rights? >> those are constitutional rights but those are things that the government -- >> katie: we shouldn't treat constitutional rights when there are one. >> other amendments in the amendment we have restrictions on. we have restrictions to not be able to enjoy responsibly -- >> katie: okay, so -- >> it's inconsistent ideologically for conservatives to say now they have a problem with the local governments and the localities coming together to protect the community. >> katie: the conservatives
don't believe in taking out bill of rights on certain place you live in. my question for you based on the fact this did pass how will they enforce this? they will charge people $1,000 a day if they don't turn the firearms over by june 13. are they going to search people's homes unlawfully? go get a warrant to decide whose home they can search and seize the weapons? how are you going to enforce this? >> why would you assume they do anything unlawfully? how do you enforce any other law? >> katie: i want to know how to enforce it. >> there is a law against jaywalking and i assume if they are caught jaywalks they are fined. >> katie: the same exact thing. seriously the left talks all about how they don't want to confiscate firearms and they pass legislation like this -- >> look at florida. florida is a trump state. they did the same thing. >> they raised the age. they did not do the same thing. answer my question.
how do you enforce a law like this without violating a number of the other rights we have in the constitution like search and says sure? >> i'm not sure. >> katie: exactly. >> you do it the way you do anything. you work with the local officials to make sure they are aware of what the regulation are and take the steps that the citizens are aware of that. if people run afoul, you hold them account for it. >> katie: this is why the they don't want a national register. >> this is uphold by -- this is uphold by the seventh appeals court. >> katie: out of time. be right back. >> those were conservative courts.
shannon bream and the team is up next. good night from new york. ♪ >> shannon: i'm shannon bream in washington. this is night -- this is "fox news @ night." we have a big stone tonight. did roger stone dine within julian assange? and join us live tonight. plus anthony scaramucci will join us to weigh in on the president throwing out the script today. we begin with breaking news in the proverbial want. the president responding for the first time of the key part of the stormy daniel saga and discovered documents that the republicans say show new evidence of justice department and